The positive side of GMOsFormer Chicoan stands up for genetically modified organisms

By Dylan Burge

This article was published on 09.05.13.

The author grew up in Chico, and is now a researcher in botany at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. For more about Burge’s thoughts on GMOs, visit his website, www.edaphics.blogspot.ca.

Summer is a time of agricultural bounty in California, a state renowned for its produce. Summer is also when my career—plant science—seems most relevant. This leads me to ponder the presence of agriculture in society, the role of science in agriculture, and my participation in science—often over a basket of Bing cherries.

I frequently think about transgenic organisms, because I work with them and feel that they may solve some of the world’s problems. Transgenic—or genetically modified—organisms (GMOs) are plants and animals that have had their genomes modified by scientists. Transgenic techniques are used to add new traits, such as disease resistance, to organisms. GM crops have already allowed farmers to reduce reliance on pesticides and the land. And this is just the beginning.

Scientists are developing new kinds of GMOs, including, for instance, disease-resistant pigs and drought-resistant corn. The benefits are limited only by creativity. New GMOs could, for example, save natural forests by providing faster-growing timber trees, or halt global warming by fixing carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, GMOs have received a lot of negative press, due to a variety of public concerns. Fortunately, a lot of this has resulted from misunderstandings, and a lack of positive public relations by scientists. These misunderstandings come in four flavors. Here, I would like to explain these, and highlight how they might be overcome:

1. They are not natural. Many worry about scientists tinkering with evolution. But evolution tinkers, too. In fact, genes often move among distantly related organisms on their own. Wild plants, for instance, contain DNA from dozens of plant families, as well as bacterial DNA spliced into their genomes by microbes.

2. They threaten our health. GMOs are all vetted for safety before they become food. Scientists are also creating GMOs that address some health concerns, such as new “gene-tailored” organisms that avoid the use of controversial bacterial DNA.

3. They threaten the environment. Scientists have been unable to identify significant environmental threats by GMOs. In fact, GMOs benefit the environment by reducing reliance on chemicals, fuel and land.

4. They are not intellectual property. Many are concerned that corporations are gaining control over food through intellectual-property law. However, new strains of crops and livestock are always protected by such laws. This allows developers to profit from their efforts, and thereby continue to create better crops and livestock for us all.

Computer Bots against VaccinesMarch 28, 2014 at 8:13amFrom Jeff Hays, the producer of BOUGHT, the movie:

"She said he went on, “So we created a social media bot that searches conversation strings in all social media for these conversations...the bot then posts the fact that they are false and links them to the “real” data showing that vaccines are safe and don’t cause autism. So this is just one example of how we can use Big Data and bots to affect social change for good.”"

"The battle lines have been drawn. Our goal is to sidestep the battle, and force a discussion on 3 key issues of our day:

Should I get my child vaccinated? 01:14Story highlightsReview of more than 20,000 scientific titles and 67 papers finds no evidence linking vaccines, autismVaccines may be greatest public health achievement of the 20th century, doctors sayPhysicians should educate parents about the importance of vaccinesChildren should get vaccinated against preventable and potentially deadly diseases. Period.

That's what a project that screened more than 20,000 scientific titles and 67 papers on vaccine safety concludes this week. The review appears in the latest edition of the medical journal Pediatrics.

The evidence strongly suggests that side effects from vaccines are incredibly rare, the study authors said. They found no ties between vaccines and the rising number of children with autism, as a small but vocal group of anti-vaccine activists, including actors Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey, have said.

The review also found no link between vaccines and childhood leukemia, something that was suggested in earlier studies.

The researchers found that some vaccines did cause a few adverse effects but it was only for a tiny fraction of the population.

There was evidence that the meningococcal vaccine can lead to anaphylaxis -- a severe, whole-body allergic reaction -- in children allergic to ingredients in the vaccine. Other studies found the MMR vaccine was linked to seizures.

"Vaccines, like any other medication, aren't 100% risk free," said Dr. Ari Brown an Austin, Texas-based pediatrician and author of the popular book "Baby 411," who was not involved with the study.

"You have a sore arm, redness at the injection site. Those are the things we see commonly. Fortunately the serious adverse effects is extremely rare."

Brown said parents ask her how safe vaccines are all the time. Some patients also ask if they should delay or stagger the vaccinations. She counsels against that practice. She said the younger the child, the more danger these diseases present.

An editorial accompanying the study calls vaccines "one of the most successful public health achievements of the 20th century."

Because of vaccines, many diseases that plagued children for centuries have all but been eliminated.

"There were good reasons that these diseases were targeted for vaccine development since they are so life-threatening," said Dr. Carrie Byington, vice-chair for research in the University of Utah's pediatrics department, and the new chair for the American Academy of Pediatrics committee on infectious diseases.

Millions of Americans live longer on average because of the protection vaccines provide. Life expectancy has gone up in the United States by more than 30 years. Infant mortality decreased from 100 deaths per 1000 to 7 between the 1900s and 2000.

A vaccine for smallpox led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to declare the disease eradicated in 1978. Prior to a vaccination for diphtheria, it was one of the most common causes of illness and death among children. Now it is rarely reported in the United States.

Dr. Gupta: Kids need to be vaccinated 02:51PLAY VIDEOYet research shows there is still doubt among some medical residents about the effectiveness of vaccinations.

What vaccines do children need? 01:05PLAY VIDEO

Experts: vaccines are necessary 01:17PLAY VIDEO"That is particularly concerning for me," Byington said. "Young residents may be in the same position as young parents who have trained at a time, or lived at a time, when these diseases were extremely rare, and they may not have ever seen how serious a vaccine-preventable infection can be."

An increasing number of parents over the years have opted out of getting their children vaccinated. And that may be having a negative impact on the community's health.

A study found that large clusters of children who had not been vaccinated were close to the large clusters of whooping cough cases in the 2010 California epidemic. While California typically has higher vaccination rates than the rest of the country, that state is dealing with yet another whooping cough epidemic.

This spring also saw an 18-year high number of measles cases in the United States. The largest outbreak was in Ohio where the virus spread quickly among the Amish, who are mostly unvaccinated. This outbreak was a real surprise to health officials who thought that the infectious disease was thought to have been eliminated from the United States in 2000.

The editorial accompanying this latest study suggests doctors, who parents typically trust to tell the truth about medical information, need to use this study to speak with confidence about the importance of vaccinating children.

"Looking at all these mounds of data -- there is still no data that show an association that shows vaccine and autism," said Brown. "I would love it to close this chapter and move on. I don't think it will. But the more research, the more we learns about autism, the more we can reassure parents that there are no links here."

Putin signed the new bill on the last day of 2014 TASS news agency reported.

The bill which was submitted by the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Protection and Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor) imposes fines for vague or unclear labeling on food products containing genetically modified ingredients.

AgricultureHow GMO Crops Can Be Good for the EnvironmentBy Drake Bennett November 18, 2014

Among the winners in this month’s elections, along with the Republican candidate in just about every competitive race, were foods containing genetically modified organisms. Ballot initiatives that would have mandated the labeling of GMOs on store shelves lost in both in Colorado (overwhelmingly) and Oregon (narrowly). Nobody knows exactly how the passage of those measures would have affected the sales of GMO products over the long run; consumers have shown a tendency to ignore the calorie counts on food labels.

Still, it’s possible that over the short term labeling laws would make foods containing GMOs less popular and therefore decrease the amount of farmland, in the U.S. and abroad, given over to modified crops. That was the goal of many labeling proponents, and a new study suggests it would have been a bad result.

The study doesn’t look at the health effects of GMOs. Thousands of independent studies have already done so and found that GMOs are perfectly safe to eat. The new research instead looks at the costs and benefits for agriculture and the environment, a question on which there is less consensus. Plenty of research, including this large study from the National Academy of Sciences, has found that GMOs have significantly increased farm yields while decreasing pesticide use and soil erosion. The idea is that because GM crops are engineered to produce insecticides in their tissues or to be immune to particular herbicides, they reduce the man-hours, fuel, and chemical inputs in farming, even while reducing losses to pests and weather. (Anti-GMO groups have looked at the same data and argued that the yield gains are minimal (PDF) and limited to special circumstances.)

The new study, in the journal PLOS One, comes down strongly on the pro-GMO side. It’s a meta-analysis that aggregates and examines the results of 147 existing research studies looking at GM soybeans, maize and cotton, the world’s biggest GM commodity crops. The authors, a pair of agricultural economists at Germany’s University of Göttingen, found that GM technology increased crop yields by 22 percent, reduced pesticide use by 37 percent, and increased farmer profits by 68 percent.

A few details jump out from the study. For one, the benefits were greater in those GM crops that produced their own pesticides rather than those engineered for herbicide resistance—the latter trait has been hugely convenient for farmers, but has also shown a greater rebound effect as weed species evolved resistance to the chosen herbicides.

The yield and profit gains were also greater in developing countries than in developed countries. Finally, the studies in the meta-analyses that were published in peer-reviewed journals showed more dramatic effects, both in yield and profit gains, than those published elsewhere. Put another way, the more rigorously vetted a study, the more likely it has been to find benefits for GMOs.

This report is absolutely ground breaking for parents everywhere. We need to keep our children safe from these toxic chemicals. Our regulatory agencies have failed us and have let Roundup be carelessly used for too long. The worse part? The American public doesn't have the right to know which food doesn't have it. This must stop and is reason enough to avoid the use of any GMO technology that is tied to this chemical.- Vani Hari Food Babe

"As a mother I am very disturbed by these results. Working as a pediatric Physical Therapist I met children with feeding issues who depend on tube feedings for their entire lives. Children who experience trauma and are recovering from car accidents, shootings, cancers, surgeries and other illnesses may require these tube feedings for days, weeks, or years. I have long questioned the nutritionally poor and inflammatory ingredients in these feedings but am devastated to find out that they are contaminated with poison. Our most vulnerable children, and our children healing from overwhelming trauma, deserve better." Sarah Cusack, MPT, CHHC

"Eeh gads Glyphosate in Pedisure is frightening. As a cardiologist concerned about herbicides, we now know that RoundUp effects heart tissue and facilitates serious heart rhythm problems(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25448876). To think we are exposing infants to this same toxin cannot be tolerated". -Joel Kahn MD

"The high levels found of course, don't address the issue of bioaccumulation in children. If Pediasure is given to sick children, we have no idea of their rates of clearance, liver function, etc. Tests done on children prior to the administration of these compounds. In addition, the issue of bioaccumulation in children has not been addressed. Their ability to clear these toxins has not been evaluated, particularly when they are ill and may have altered renal function." - Dr. Michelle Perro, Pediatrician

"I find it astonishing that babies and children with cancer are being provided with nutrients through a feeding tube that are contaminated with glyphosate. It ought to be obvious to medical professionals that it is essential to assure that as few toxic chemicals as possible are present in enteral nutrition provided to seriously ill children. This is a direct delivery system for glyphosate to the blood and to the tissues. It should be undeniable that certified organic sources are the only viable option in such a situation."- Stephanie Seneff MIT scientist and co author of the Glyphosate Papers

The data produced regarding the levels of glyphosate in our food, water and medicines the better. Even though this testing is not validated it does give a strong clue as to how ubiquitous glyphosate is in the U.S. food supply system. The question the EPA and USDA should be asking themselves is are they willing to risk public health by relying on short-term industry sponsored safety studies on glyphosate and all other pesticides. It is time for the regulators to support long-term independent science to deterime just how damaging glyphosate pesticides are for this and future generations. While these studies are being completed all glyphosate-based herbicides should be removed from the shelves." - Henry Rowlands, Sustainable Pulse

"I have reviewed the lab report dated January 2, 2015 from Microbe Inotech Lab for Moms Across America and can tell you that your results for Pediasure Enteral Nutritional drink are consistent with our lab results of April 18, 2004 for soy based Enfamil ProSobee liquid infant baby formulas.

The Moms Infotech Lab report for ELISA glyphosate analysis showed 6 out of 20 positive IDs for Glyphosate residue in the product. This represents 30% of the samples which tested positive. The highest concentration found was in sample #5 which contained 111 ppb (parts per billion). The lowest detectable reading for milk-like products with this method of analysis is 76 ppb and the lowest amount positively detected in the Mom's lab report was found in sample #7 and contained 80 ppb.

These results, DO NOT necessarily mean that the other 14 samples were free of glyphosate, they may also have glyphosate, only at undetectable levels. These results only show those samples, that could be positively identified by the ELISA method of analysis. Had another method been chosen, such as HPLC-MS with a lower detection limit, possibly more samples would have shown glyphosate residue contamination. We know HPLC-MS testing is 3 times more expensive, but the ELISA results are quick and now show follow up testing is necessary, especially by government agencies who are supposed to protect public health and interests.

Your results and our results, both show measurable amounts of Glyphosate contained in infant formula products and this is most concerning. We found 170 ppb of glyphosate in Enfamil ProSobee liquid infant baby formula, so it will be interesting to compare this result when you receive the report for your infant formula samples.

Make no mistake about it, the levels of glyphosate found in these tests, are levels that do cause harm and damage to the microbiome which comprises 70% of the immune system. This will affect both present and future health. Glyphosate is an insidious, hazardous chemical which should have never been brought to market nor allowed to contaminate the food supply of the USA and that of the developing world.

The levels found in these lab tests, can cause irreparable damage to a developing child, as well as harm to an adult. After all, it is the bacteria of our microbiome and even greater, that of the biosphere which controls the destiny of all living organisms, from birth to the grave." -Anthony Samsel Independant scientist and co author of the Glyphosate Papers

What to do?

Studies show gut bacteria improvements and symptoms of autism are reduced with probiotics. The best form of probiotics are whole food such as raw organic saurkraut, vegetables, organic yogurt, organic miso, and organic keifer. The reason for this is that the probiotics ( good bacteria) have been shown to restore the gut flora and therefore rebuild the gut brain connection and the immune system.

Unlike any other time in history, American moms, caregivers and all citizens around the world must be concerned with their gut flora, which harbors 70% of the immune system. We moms have seen that when we take preventative measures to avoid GMOs and related pesticides, and ad fermented vegetables and/or probiotics, our children's and our own health improves.

We hope this information is brought to the attention of hospital directors and that they switch to organic feeding tube liquid options (see solutions page for possible option) as soon as possible. Also parents with children on feeding tubes, please look into alternatives such as bone broth, organic smoothies, probiotic and fermeted vegetables and saurkraut juice. Although we are not doctors, and we recommend you seek appropriate care, our mothers have seen improvements with the foods and diets mentioned on our "Solutions" page.

Thank you to all our dedicated supporters and sponsors who donated to get these tests done.

So the question is why? Why am I part of a huge, and growing, group not willing to believe the “facts” (according to its proponents) about the benefits of genetic modification?

The basic answer is simple: trust.

Science has a credibility problem. It has for too long been used to distort food and twist the natural into long lasting Twinkies and nutritionally void Lunchables. Tobacco was good for us, we were told, and DDT was fine to spray on our fields. Food dyes are all still considered safe for our kids to eat, and “natural” foods, we are made to believe, are made of naturally occurring ingredients.

In all cases we have been misled, and today it is not “false fears” that has bred skeptical consumers, it is experience.

The Benefits of Genetically Modified Food CropsWhile genetically modified crops have come under much skepticism, GMOs have the potential to benefit food production, world health, the environment, and the economy.by Andy Luttrell

GM Crops Benefit Global Health and EnvironmentGenetically modified (GM) crops have made a tremendous positive impact on the world. A 2004 article titled “GM crops: The global economic and environmental impact—the first nine years 1996-2004,” published in the Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics by Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot reports that GM technology has had considerable economic and environmental effects between 1996 and 2004, bringing $27 billion directly to farms, reducing pesticide use by 172 million kg (resulting in a 14% reduction in pesticide-associated environmental footprint), and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by over 10 billion kg (as much as removing five million cars from the earth for a year).This data was only based on the first nine years of widespread GM crop growth; the technology shows even greater promise as more research is conducted and implemented. “GM crops can contribute substantial progress in improving agriculture, in parallel to the (usually slow) changes at the sociopolitical level,” says a 2003 Nuffield Council on Bioethics report titled “The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries: A follow-up discussion paper.” “There is an ethical obligation to explore these potential benefits responsibly, in order to contribute to the reduction of poverty, and to improve food security and profitable agriculture in developing countries.”

How Genetically Modified Crops Benefit Crop GrowthAs demonstrated by GMO-pioneer Norman Borlaug ("Norman Borlaug," The Nobel Foundation, Nobelprize.org), crops can be modified to facilitate their growth in less-than-ideal circumstances. A particular concern among small-scale farmers in developing countries, but also among large-scale farmers, is the loss of crops to insect pests. One way to combat this problem is to drench fields with pesticides, but this behavior can have negative health effects on farmers, the environment, and the health of consumers.

Instead, biotechnology can be used to increase yields via pest-resistant crops, according to Matin Qaim and David Zilberman’s 2003 paper “Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries” in the journal Science. For example, in Africa (and Kenya, particularly), the sweet potato serves as an important subsistence crop, but viruses and weevils can dramatically decrease output by up to 80%. The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, however, has developed a genetically modified sweet potato that can increase crop yields by 18-25%.

Biotechnology can also generate crops with genes that resist damage due to unexpected frost and long periods of drought. These GM crops will allow more food to be produced per plot of land, and in regions that suffer from a lack of arable land, these crops will provide food where there once was not.

Economic Benefits of Genetically Modified CropsUse of genetically altered foods can have a positive effect on the economy, especially in less developed countries. Already, implementation of GM crops has led to economic gains in South Africa, according to the 2006 Journal of Development Studies article “The economic impact of genetically modified cotton on South African smallholders” by Richard Bennett, Stephen Morse, and Yousouf Ismael.

The GM sweet potatoes mentioned earlier have been predicted to increase farmer income by up to 30% for virus-resistant potatoes and up to 40% for weevil-resistant potatoes. Because GM crops require fewer pesticides, farmers can save money on both the costs of pesticides and on the labor necessary to administer the treatments. This, combined with higher output, allow the farmer to profit more from his or her product.

How Genetically Modified Plants Benefit the EnvironmentWhile GM crops’ reduced reliance on pesticides has shown both agricultural and economic benefits, it also has environmental benefits. The United States Department of Agriculture reports in the 2000 document “Genetically engineered crops: Has adoption reduced pesticide use?” that from 1997 to 1998, farmers used 8.2 million fewer pounds of active pesticide ingredients on corn, cotton, and soybeans. This reduction corresponded with an increasing adoption of GM crops, marking the potential for this technology to reduce pest-control chemicals released into the environment. In fact, while not necessarily related to food-related biotechnology, some GM plants have been developed to take care of heavy metal pollution in contaminated soil.

The Effect of Genetically Modified Food on Global NutritionGiven the prevalence of malnutrition throughout the world, the ability to increase the nutritional content of available foods would have dramatic implications. An important example is vitamin A deficiency (VAD). Vitamin A is vital to reproduction, immune system functioning, and vision, but Dr. Nilva Egana, in the 2003 Journal of Nutrition & Environmental Medicine article “Vitamin A Deficiency and Golden Rice” notes that every year, “approximately a quarter of a million children in Southeast Asia go blind because of VAD and many more become susceptible to infectious diseases such as measles.”

In response to this problem, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences developed “golden rice,” a strain of rice with a higher amount of vitamin A that could be given to countries suffering from malnutrition. While some critics note that the distribution of golden rice will not solve global malnutrition by itself, the potential for GM crops to promote better nutrition in poor countries warrants further research.

How Genetic Engineering Benefits World HealthFinally, biotechnology can allow people to receive crucial medicines and vaccines that are difficult to distribute. By putting vaccines into food products, organizations can more easily transport and administer them to people in need. For example, a June 4, 2001 Scientific American piece by Kate Wong, titled “Souped-up Spuds Show Promise for Edible Vaccines,” describes the work of researchers who have developed a transgenic potato that has immunized rats against both rotavirus and E. coli, two potentially deadly stomach diseases. This research demonstrates the potential for GM food to carry vaccines against infections by both bacteria and viruses.

This article was posted TODAY by the Institute of Science in Society. The study finds that gmos are harmful to health.

They advise to take immediate action to BAN GMOs from homes and local communities.

"To conclude

GMOs are once again found to be deleterious for health in a feeding trial that last no longer than 90 days. And within that time, the most widespread piece of transgenic DNA found in the GM diet, the CaMV 35S promoter, was found transferred horizontally into the animals’ tissues at high frequencies. The CaMV 35S promoter is not the only hazardous piece of transgenic DNA, there are similar aggressive promoters designed to make genes express out of context, as well as genes coding for antibiotics and other dangerous functions, together with numerous recombination hotspots that enhance horizontal gene transfer; all of which contribute to making all GMOs unsafe. That is indeed the conclusion from research carried out by scientists independent of the industry up to now, which fully corroborates what farmers have been witnessing in their livestock and doctors in their patients for years [14]. People need to take immediate action to ban GMOs from their own home and local communities. Governments should recall all GMOs from the market. And companies and regulators should face prosecution for causing damages to health and criminal negligence."

A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue. Those claims are simply not true.

NOTE: This piece was co-written with a writer at the Genetic Literacy Project, JoAnna Wendel.

“Genetically modified (GM) foods should be a concern for those who suffer from food allergies because they are not tested….”

- Organic Consumers Association

The claim that genetically engineered crops are ‘understudied’—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted above—has become a staple of opponents of crop biotechnology, especially activist journalists. Anti-GMO campaigners, including many organic supporters, assert time and again that genetically modified crops have not been safety tested or that the research done to date on the health or environmental impact of GMOs has “all” been done by the companies that produce the seeds. Therefore, they claim, consumers are taking a ‘leap of faith’ in concluding that they face no harm from consuming foods made with genetically modified ingredients.

That is false.

Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods. But until now, the magnitude of the research on crop biotechnology has never been cataloged. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists summarized 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.

The research review, published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last decade—from 2002 to 2012—which represents only about a third of the lifetime of GM technology.

“Our goal was to create a single document where interested people of all levels of expertise can get an overview on what has been done by scientists regarding GE crop safety,” lead researcher Alessandro Nicolia, applied biologist at the University of Perugia, told Real Clear Science. “We tried to give a balanced view informing about what has been debated, the conclusions reached so far, and emerging issues.”

The conclusions are also striking because European governments, Italy in particular, have not been as embracing of genetically modified crops as has North and South America, although the consensus of European scientists has been generally positive.

The Italian review not only compiled independent research on GMOs over the last ten years but also summarizes findings in the different categories of GM research: general literature, environmental impact, safety of consumption and traceability.

The “general literature” category of studies largely reveals the differences between the US, EU and other countries when it comes to regulating GM crops. Due to lack of uniform regulatory practices and the rise of non-scientific rhetoric, Nicolia and his colleagues report, concern about GMOs has been greatly exaggerated.

Environmental impact studies are predominant in the body of GM research, making up 68% of the 1,783 studies. These studies investigated environmental impact on the crop-level, farm-level and landscape-level. Nicolia and his team found “little to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their surroundings.

One of the fastest growing areas of research is in gene flow, the potential for genes from GM crops to be found—“contaminate” in the parlance of activists—in non-GM crops in neighboring fields. Nicolia and his colleagues report that this has been observed, and scientists have been studying ways to reduce this risk with different strategies such as isolation distances and post-harvest practices. The review notes that gene flow is not unique to GM technology and is commonly seen in wild plants and non-GM crops. While gene flow could certainly benefit from more research, Nicolia and his colleagues suggest, the public’s aversion to field trials discourages many scientists, especially in the EU.

In the food and feeding category, the team found no evidence that approved GMOs introduce any unique allergens or toxins into the food supply. All GM crops are tested against a database of all known allergens before commercialization and any crop found containing new allergens is not approved or marketed.

The researchers also address the safety of transcribed RNA from transgenic DNA. Are scientists fiddling with the ‘natural order’ of life? In fact, humans consume between 0.1 and 1 gram of DNA per day, from both GM and non-GM ingredients. This DNA is generally degraded by food processing, and any surviving DNA is then subsequently degraded in the digestive system. No evidence was found that DNA absorbed through the GI tract could be integrated into human cells—a popular anti-GMO criticism.

These 1783 studies are expected to be merged into the public database known as GENERA (Genetic Engineering Risk Atlas) being built by Biofortified, an independent non-profit website. Officially launched in 2012, GENERA includes peer-reviewed journal articles from different aspects of GM research, including basic genetics, feeding studies, environmental impact and nutritional impact. GENERA has more than 650 studies listed so far, many of which also show up in the new database. When merged, there should be well over 2000 GMO related studies, a sizable percentage—as many as 1000—that have been independently executed by independent scientists.

In short, genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history. This year celebrates the 30th anniversary of GM technology, and the paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public’s health. The reason for the public’s distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false debates.